All of which says "stylised and arty" and is a look much used in The Wire and similar publications.

I'm kind of irritated by this. TA are legendary for super-expensive toy-like products that must have insanely high margins. So somehow the "I was never into money (but now I collect antique synthesizers with four or five figure price tags)" line doesn't ring entirely true.

“Shit ain’t broke unless you’re broke, that’s some real shit.” - Lil Yachty

I get it though, there are lots of expensive things I’d like to collect, but it’s about the object and not what it’s worth. If they were cheap I’d still want to collect them.

You see it a lot in art, some people collect only as an investment vehicle - others buy what they like without regard for future returns. Ones mostly about the money.

And people fall for it. It's crazy how many people blindly buy into TE's "homestyle" marketing like they're some hibrow synth company. The OP-1 tickles every American's "Product Cortex" in their brain though, immediately associating brutalist design and Corinthian leather with quality engineering. It doesn't matter if we're not the target audience, we just want to spend money on pretty things that make us feel good. The OP-1 is like the rich man's fidget spinner, I see it on someone's desk and assume that they have too much time and money on their hands.

Just goes to show that you can take pretty much anything, market it to relatively affluent and bored tech workers and make a killing.

The OP-1 is an instrument though, it seems like a pretty amazing instrument for creativity for those that can use it. And most instruments are more expensive than it..

I've tried a lot of grooveboxes in my time, and the OP-1 is one of the only instruments I've ever seen that has worse value-per-dollar than the DSI Tempest. Very few instruments are expensive and useless enough to justify this; the OP-1 is solidly among them though.

All I'll say is that you should reserve your judgement until you've tried some competing products. The Playmobil laptop looks like a great way to do your Word documents until you try a Dell or Apple machine.

Which one would you recommend? For an easy to use low end starting point.

I'd probably recommend the Model: Samples if you're interested in sampling, or the Novation Circuit if you want to focus on synthesis. The Model: Samples in particular is great - it's an adaptation of Elektron's more expensive Digitakt that puts the core featureset in a more focused box. It would probably be my sub-$400 desert-island groovebox choice.

Edit: it's worth noting that both of these systems are sequencers, not tape recorders. I consider that a benefit (much longer record times) but if you want a multitrack recorder then you should look elsewhere (maybe a 4iXo DAC?)

OP-1 owner eh ?

Sure it's cheap if you compare it to Stradivarius, but if you use instruments in same type ("a CPU feeding ADC/DAC with some knobs and buttons") it is one of most expensive one in category.

OP-1 field (the only version they sell) is 2000 EUR. That's top end of synth world and you usually get more knobs and keys with that. That's the price of Korg/Roland/Yamaha workstation-level keyboards.

Do NOT try to compare it on price with anything, it will always look like a bad joke. Subjective, might be worth to you etc.

So... you judge character based on appearances?

No other gear company has tackled the all-in-one synth-sequencer-4trackrecorder-groovebox that is the OP-1 in the decade since its release. TE not capitalizing on this would be financially naive.

I am pretty sure real professionals use carefully configured personal computers with keyboards plugged in.

The same as how professional photographers use expensive 'real' capital-C Cameras with interchangeable capital-L Lenses but still carry pocketable point-and-shoots for 'fun,' e.g. Ricoh GR, Fuji X100. Tools should be enjoyable to use, which these gadgets offer in spades.

But in this case, the just-for-fun pocket device is more often expensive than the capital-K Keyboard.

Both of the cameras I listed are more expensive than many perfectly capable interchangeable-lens cameras (Ricoh GR ~$1000, Fuji X100 ~$1300 [currently prone to scalping for even more]), but still rightfully warrant the demand because of their usability.

Which is fine. If professionals collect them for novelty, nothing is lost. If a beginner were to spend all their money on a novelty camera instead of an interchangeable lens model, then it does become a bit of a waste. Almost like they bought into the hype because of the end-product or social sex-appeal, a phenomenon that ties neatly into TE's marketing.

They aren't novelties any more than using a prime non-zoom lens on an antique film camera is a novelty. That would be tantamount to claiming that playing on a large unwieldy needs-to-be-tuned acoustic piano is a novelty compared to a digital keybed with plugins.

"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations."

Smaller devices are still used as notepad for ideas.

My opinion is based off the weekend I spent with a rented model. I very quickly realized that the OP-1 is like an iPhone app that someone turned into pricy hardware.

> No other gear company has tackled the all-in-one synth-sequencer-4trackrecorder-groovebox

Seriously?

Plenty of other companies have. If you're old enough to remember, Elektron had an 8 track sequencer/recorder/groovebox that cost roughly the same price as the OP-1. Their mono model was actually cheaper than the OP-1 (and arguably nicer).

...which is of course to ignore the hundreds of other sub-$1000 grooveboxes that do 90% of what the OP-1 does. Hell, that's to ignore DAWs that cost 1/3rd of the price with 300% more features. If you buy an OP-1 as your introduction to electronic music, you are wasting your money.

That last 10% is precisely the point. Nothing AFAIK has the audio-oriented tape-style workflow with a keyboard and groovebox functionality in as small a footprint as the OP-1. The reality is that the OP-1 has been successful enough to warrant a successor and that are not negatively affecting other manufacturers doing whatever they want to do with their offerings, and this affects you personally... how?

I just find it utterly fascinating how rich, clueless tech workers throw money at cool-looking companies they see on YouTube. It's so unfathomably stupid to me that I feel the need to share it on HN, but I realize in retrospect this community might not share my opinion.

It's unfathomably stupid to me that one would care so much about what others spend their money on, as if it were something actively harmful.

To each their own, the only real winner here is the one selling their product.

Sometimes I forget this is a business website first, tech website second. Touché, the abject waste of money is so easy to ignore when you contextualize it on a website of moonshot founders and Apple enthusiasts.

I have a fair share of dislikes of what people spend their money on, e.g. conspicuous consumption on fads, Teslas in particular, because they have or will directly impact my being as an individual through policy and regulation. The instrument someone enjoys making music on is so insignificant that it shouldn't warrant my concern.

Then again, considering how little progress there is to be made with music technology and how much of the industry is buoyed by marketing and brand, it makes sense that people defend their choice of consumption so fervently.

If you don't care about it, nobody is egging you into further conversation. I talk about this stuff because I enjoy making music, and there is intellectually gratifying criticism to be made on the gear being produced today. If you don't care about that, then admittedly I could see how this is pedantic and pointless.

Like I said above, it's my mistake for criticizing consumerism on a website that lives, eats and dies on how much people buy into arbitrary things like marketing and brand.

It's not "care", it's morbid curiosity about how psyche of humans work.

There is a marked difference between curiosity and kvetching.

"Who in right mind buys this overpriced gadget? Why ?" is both.

Yep, if you really think about it people not overcharging for their products are the real suckers.

Synthstrom Deluge does everything the OP-1 does (and much more), and was $400 cheaper until recently.

No UI, no keyboard requiring a different mental interface if you are coming from a traditional i.e. piano-based instrument, at least twice the size.

It's also much bigger and heavier though.

Shh don't tell Uli Behringer about it /s

I think it is because "just making same thing" is frowned upon and also industry cares to not eat itself.

For example take Digitakt and Digitone. It could easily be combined into one device "it is just code" and CPUs got faster since release of those but they don't, because they know having those "blind spots" in each of their devices (that other of their devices fit) is good for sales. Got a Digitone ? Want Drum machine to it ? Well, Digitakt got same interface you already know. Even their newest device Syntakt omits a lot of FM stuff to not step on Digitone niche.

Also there is plenty all-in-ones with more capability, all the way to monsters like MASCHINE+, MPC X or Force. People buy OP-1 coz they want to work within the limits and think that will make better music, not because it can do something unique anything else can't.

Which is understandable, given myriad options it's easy to get lost in tinkering with them instead of focusing on creation.

They’re the Sharper Image of audio.

Seriously, comparing my OP-1 ($1400, made in china, buggy, bad QC, small and simple hardware) with my Analog Rytm mkII ($1700, made in sweden, reliable, impeccable QC, larger and much more complex hardware) - the margins on these TE gizmos must be insane.

There was nothing like the OP-1 at release and still nothing like it now. It is overpriced, but they arguably deserve it. They have the Apple business model.

I guess they know their market because the follow up OP-1 Field is even more expensive

By what criteria is there "nothing like" it? Of course you can define "like" in a way to make this true, but I'm curious what you think are the salient differentiators.

Portable all in one groovebox with a keyboard.

Even ignoring the keyboard, the creativity and fun of the OP-1s tape and synthesis modes, things like the gyro and FM radio, are fairly unique. There is a reason it is so successful.

> There is a reason it is so successful.

Yes, because it managed to capture a self-sustaining hype cycle powered by customers who for the most part don't really know what they're buying. It's more of a status item than an actually fun or useful musical instrument, IMO. This thread reminds me, I need to sell mine.

I was curious to hear about other products that are similar, but superior to OP-1, that previous reply alluded to.

If someone said "I have a $1400 (or $2000, now that they've raised the price) budget for a lightweight portable jambox/production setup, what would you recommend?" I would tell them to get an iPad Pro, an external audio interface, and a MIDI USB peripheral of their choice.

GarageBand on iPad is perfectly fine for the type of screwing around you can do on an OP1, it's much more powerful overall, and it even supports stuff like MIDI inputs and MIDI clock master.

The OP1 has midi input over USB.

I'm not an expert but I suspect an iPad with some interesting groovebox apps would provide just as much fun and be more powerful.

As a beginner I think ipad + audiokit synths + impc pro is a killer setup

> Portable all in one groovebox with a keyboard.

MASCHINE+, MPC X, Force, dozen other 440 style grooveboxes. Arguably Dirtywave M8

I mean it is neat device and I'm kinda surprised nobody cloned the minimalistic format (I guess Volcas are kind of that, although more "one thing" rather than versatility, but the asking price is truly ridiculous

None of those have a keyboard.

They have, just not piano one. Which hinders more than helps creativity if anything...

If you can play keyboard, there really is no comparison between keys and a set of buttons.

You are of course free to have fun with the OP-1, but I found it to block my creativity when I constantly have to work around the omnipresent petty limitations like 4 tracks, 1 effect per voice, almost useless sequencers etc.

I agree and enjoyed the OP-Z more for that reason. They are supposed to be limited but that doesn't work for everyone.

It makes sense, because he is also a co-founder of Acne Studios[1], and they are about pretty high margins on unspectacular but nice clothing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acne_Studios

Unfortunately, All low volume boutique electronic musical instruments have “insanely high margins”. The less boutique normal stuff made by Yamaha and Roland is likely priced at 4x the BOM - and they are able to get better deals from distributors than TE can.

You can’t sustain a business any other way. Consumer electronics are cheap because they can sell millions worldwide. Stuff like the OP1 sells in the 10s of thousands so they’re not getting any special deals from their vendors either.

It's worth drawing a line between handmade instruments and mass-produced machines though. Yes, Roland and Yamaha also have high margins, but they also face steep competition from low-margin companies like Behringer who are effectively wrecking their business model. Companies like Moog were safe because their demand will always be the same, but boutique vendors everywhere are closing up shop.

I'll agree that it's a zero-sum game either way, but it ends with the high-margin vendors getting undercut. Something we could have avoided if they worked to make their product cheaper instead of working to make it more expensive.

If you compare them with other competitors in the space the likes of Elektron or Polyend give you more hardware for less. They make Elektron look outright cheap in comparison in fact.

> Stuff like the OP1 sells in the 10s of thousands so they’re not getting any special deals from their vendors either.

10s of thousands is enough to get the economies of scale to start working. Even for stuff like custom LCDs for pocket operators.

Yes niche costs few times to make than truly mass market as you still need to pay yourself a salary and not just "earn good profit on unit", but on the other side the only reason OP-1 is niche it is because say OP-1 is just that expensive that most people look at it and go "okay, I could get this and this and that and still have some money left over". They know hipsters will buy it and have no real reason to try to sell more units for less money, as that devalues the eliteness of it.

You definitely got a point. I would say that they deserve the money because people love their products and are happy to pay the premium.

I also think that as much as it is a cliche "never being into money" it's an important aspect of success, because you can either be driven by profit at one end of the spectrum and a genuine passion for a great product on the other.

If you do succeed and become wealthy, then it doesn't matter if a synth is $500 or $50'000, you can have it.

All of that is just the current photography fad. Sinna Nisseri is the poster boy of the look at the moment though he gets better performances out of his subjects.

This style is ubiquitous—Terry Richardson, etc.

Let's hope this guy didn't get the rest of the Terry Richardson experience!

And has been for two decades now… remarkably long lived.

I think Richardson has a very similar technique, although he tends to shoot with white backgrounds. These specific pictures seem closer still to the photography in magazines like Apartamento, or in this case https://record-magazine.com/issues

I always wonder when this retro frontal flash approach will go out of style. It’s handy while it lasts, because it’s very easy to make interior shots this way. No need to bother with lighting setups, just a single big flash mounted with your camera. Quite the accessible style! Yet it does help to differentiate from phone cameras, which seems to be a driving force for photographic trends… Just like shallow depth of field has been fashionable for a while (and might go out of fashion now phones can fake it), big flashes are not typically found on phones.

The style also works, I think, because it channels event photography rather than art photography, which gives it its immediacy and nonchalance. It’s very similar to the look of photojournalism in the eighties when certain press photographers started working with colour films to document openings etc., they used the big Metz flashes on a bracket and the diffusers were less sophisticated so you get this very direct, often blown out light. And amateur photographs of parties at the time were much the same (albeit with smaller flashes).

So stylized (because retro) yet nonchalant. And it’s really easy to do, just have your flash fire a bit harder than it suggests on it own :)

The bad-flash point-and-shoot aesthetic is in now. NY street photographers championing the Bruce Gilden-esque technique are growing into their own in publications like NYT and defining the wave.

It reminds me of Terry Richardson's sort of "amateur point-and-shoot portraiture" style, which also had a very 1970s-basement vibe to it which I think matches both the ideas and the gear here.